In Francis Uzoh v HMRC [2026] TC09775, the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that claims for business travel and subsistence expenses were invalid as the expenses were 'ordinary commuting'.
Francis Uzoh appealed against four Discovery assessments issued by HMRC against business Travel and Subsistence expenses claims.
- The assessments related to the tax years 2017-18, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, totalling £4,436.40, and arose after HMRC concluded that employment-related travel and subsistence expenses claimed in Mr Uzoh's Self Assessment returns were not allowable under the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA).
- Throughout the relevant years, Mr Uzoh was a PAYE employee.
- In June 2021, having incurred expenses over £2,500, he contacted HMRC to enrol for Self Assessment.
- He used the Tommy's Tax app to prepare and submit his Self Assessment tax returns for the relevant years.
- Mr Uzoh entered information into the app based on actual receipts and believed that Tommy's Tax would make only legitimate claims.
- The claims included expenses for business travel and subsistence, which generated a repayment of £3,412.40.
- £3,254.54 was repaid to Tommy's Tax for the relevant tax years. Tommy's Tax retained £1,163.13 of the repayment and passed £2,091.41 to Mr Uzoh.
- Mr Uzoh did not see the returns before submission.
- Between September 2021 and October 2023, Mr Uzoh contacted HMRC to chase the repayment for 2021-22.
- This triggered a review by HMRC, who wrote to Mr Uzoh in December 2023 explaining that the expense claims appeared incorrect and asked for supporting documentation.
- In February 2024, Mr Uzoh provided screenshots from the app and bank statements showing contactless Transport for London payments, but without details of the journeys.
- As the evidence did not demonstrate whether the travel was wholly for business purposes or not reimbursed by the employer, HMRC issued discovery assessments on 5 March 2024 to recover the tax owed.
- Mr Uzoh later provided a spreadsheet on 11 March 2024 showing journeys beginning at postcode SE6 1AU, which HMRC identified as his previous home address, meaning any such travel was 'ordinary commuting', not allowable under s.338 ITEPA.
- Mr Uzoh Appealed the assessments, arguing that:
- The statutory conditions for making a discovery assessment were not met: there was no loss of tax, no valid discovery and he had not been careless.
- His agent had inflated the expense claims and he should not be liable for amounts retained by Tommy's Tax.
- Penalties should be mitigated and interest should not be charged.
- He also maintained that some travel related to temporary workplaces and therefore should have qualified for relief.
The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that:
- Mr Uzoh failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the expenses were allowable.
- There was no evidence that Mr Uzoh was obliged to incur the costs as a holder of the employment.
- There was no evidence that the travel was undertaken in the performance of employment duties.
- Under s.338 ITEPA, ordinary commuting between home and a permanent workplace is not allowable. The spreadsheet showed journeys beginning at Mr Uzoh's home.
- Although Mr Uzoh stated that some sites were temporary workplaces, he provided no documents identifying them or showing why they were temporary.
- The claims were not deductible, and there was an insufficiency of tax.
- The discovery assessments were valid and issued in time.
- Mr Uzoh's argument that he relied on an adviser did not negate carlessness.
- Although reliance on an adviser can show reasonable care in some cases, it depends on the facts of a specific case.
- A reasonable taxpayer would have done more than wholly rely on the advice from Tommy's Tax. For example:
- Consulted HMRC guidance or legislation on commuting expenses.
- Asked Tommy's Tax for an explanation of the basis of the claims.
- Mr Uzoh did neither. His reliance on the agent, therefore, amounted to a failure to take reasonable care and the insufficiency of tax was brought about carelessly.
- Penalties were not considered, as no behavioural penalties had been issued and the late payment penalties had been waived.
- There was no statutory right of appeal to the FTT in respect of interest or whether or not HMRC should waive the collection of tax due because it was not paid to Mr Uzoh. For this reason, these arguments were also not considered in this appeal.
The appeal was dismissed.
Useful guides on this topic
Discovery Assessments
When can HMRC issue an assessment outside of the normal statutory time limits? What conditions must be met? Can HMRC issue two alternative assessments for the same period? What are your rights of appeal and defences?
Travel (summary for employees)
What expenses can your employer reimburse? How might travel expenses affect Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions? What journeys are allowable for tax relief?
Subsistence (summary for employees)
Can employees claim tax relief for subsistence? How do you make a claim?
How to appeal an HMRC decision
Disagree with an HMRC decision? How do you appeal, what type of decision can you appeal and what are your different options when you disagree with HMRC? What are the key steps in making an appeal?
External link